Sanctuary Illusion

The Left applies their game of distortion

The Left wants you to believe that without so-called “sanctuary laws,” your local sheriff or local police departments are somehow being forced to do the job of federal immigration officers. That your town is being drained dry by overzealous ICE agents riding in on horseback, demanding that small-town law enforcement do Washington’s bidding. That’s an illusion--a carefully crafted myth designed to undermine the rule of law, federal authority, and ultimately American sovereignty.

If an illegal alien commits a crime, local law enforcement is going to arrest and detain them anyway. That’s the job. That’s what they do, and no sanctuary law changes that basic reality.

That’s when The Left applies their game of distortion--claiming that merely communicating with federal immigration officials--or holding a criminal alien for a few extra hours so ICE can do their job--is somehow an imposition so massive, so unconstitutional, that it breaks the back of local jurisdictions.

Not True.

The narrative is a scare tactic

The narrative is a scare tactic. Democrats scream about resource burdens, but the real burden is what happens when dangerous criminals are released back into communities because of arbitrary sanctuary policies that forbid even a phone call to ICE. The cost isn’t overtime hours--it is victims. It is the reality of letting repeat offenders who broke the law in the first place into the country, and the criminal element of that “undocumented immigration” population committing crimes against Americans that ultimately puts blood on the hands of politicians who pretend compassion while enabling chaos.

It has been argued to me that only a small percentage of illegal aliens break laws once they are in the country, and that they provide services, and perform jobs that Americans do not wish to do. They are families seeking a better life and as long as they are not dangerous criminals we should at least let those people stay.

Breaking into somebody’s house does not suddenly make them a member of the community

A small percentage of people walking down the sidewalk actually commit crimes, but I still lock my door, and when someone who I do not know is at the door I still ask, “Who is it?” In other words, in my own home I practice border security and a vetting process before I let someone in--not because I hate everyone out there, or I believe they are all criminals, but because I wish to protect my family and my possessions from the criminal element that may be a small percentage of people out there, but exists and are waiting for one crack in my armor so that they may enter into my life and cause harm.

Could you imagine if someone broke into your house, you called the police to remove them, and some politician then argues that you can’t remove them from your house because they are doing the dishes you don’t want to do, they are taking care of your yard, and though they broke into your house and they are eating your food they haven’t broken any of the rules of your household so you are required to give them a bed and let them stay? That’s ridiculous. They broke into your house! I don’t care how wonderful they may seem, otherwise--they exhibited criminal behavior in the first place by breaking into your house. If they want to live in the neighborhood, they can go through the process of being approved for a loan to buy a house, or get a renters agreement. Breaking into somebody’s house does not suddenly make them a member of the community.

Then, there’s the United States Constitution. The Founding Fathers' didn’t stutter. They were pretty clear in what they wrote.

• Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the exclusive authority over naturalization--that is, the rules by which foreigners may become citizens.
• Article I, Section 9 empowers Congress to prohibit migration--and that clause goes beyond simply slaves being brought into the United States at the time. The movement of people into the country itself is a federal authority.
• Article VI, the Supremacy Clause, says clearly that the Constitution and laws made in pursuance of the Constitution thereof are the supreme law of the land, “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” In other words, no state law, no city ordinance, no sanctuary declaration--can stand in opposition to federal law if it is authorized by the Constitution--Period.
• The Tenth Amendment provides the foundation for States’ Rights, but only applies when the Constitution is silent, or when a State is prohibited to make a particular law. On immigration, the Constitution is loud, clear and unapologetic--Immigration is a federal authority.

Sanctuary laws that forbid cooperation with federal immigration enforcement are unconstitutional on their face

So sanctuary laws that forbid cooperation with federal immigration enforcement are unconstitutional on their face. They obstruct federal officers in the execution of their lawful duties. And that is their motive deep down--to interfere and obstruct federal authority. That’s not “States’ Rights.” That’s lawlessness wrapped in state and local politics

And now they are doubling down on their unconstitutional behavior and rhetoric. They say the President cannot send ICE agents--or the National Guard, or even the military--into cities far from the border. Nonsense. The President of the United States is the Chief Executive. Under Article II of the Constitution he is vested with the executive power, which includes the authority to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. That’s not optional. That’s not symbolic. That is his duty, his power, and his job as President of the United States.

Article I, Section 9 is clear that the militia may be called into the service of the United States, of which according to the Militia Act of 1903 the National Guard qualifies as a part of the militia, to execute the laws of the union. That means the federal government in order to ensure that federal law is being carried out, such as in the case of ICE performing raids inside cities, the federal government may send the National Guard in to assist and ensure that there is no obstruction to those activities as we’ve been seeing with the ICE Riots and foolish leftist politicians.

The Democrats and their allies on The Left are now screaming “federal overreach” and that President Trump’s use of federal troops somehow makes him a dictator using his version of the Gestapo or Brownshirts in order to execute immigration law. But, before they do that, let’s take a walk through history. 

Presidents have used federal troops domestically many times

Presidents have used federal troops domestically many times, and for far less cause than the protection of national sovereignty:

• Washington: Whiskey Rebellion.
• John Adams: Fries Rebellion.
• Andrew Jackson: Intervene in Labor Disputes.
• Ulysses S. Grant: Combat Ku Klux Klan.
• Rutherford Hayes: Intervene in Labor Disputes.
• Grover Cleveland: Intervene in Labor Disputes.
• Woodrow Wilson: To stop race riots in 20 cities across the United States.
• Herbert Hoover: Disbanding the Bonus Army.
• Dwight D. Eisenhower: Enforce desegregation of schools in the South.
• John F. Kennedy: Enforce desegregation of schools in the South.
• Lyndon B. Johnson: Protect civil rights activists marching from Selma to Montgomery (against the wishes of the state's governor).
• Lyndon B. Johnson: 1965 Watts Riots in Los Angeles.
• Lyndon B. Johnson: Break up 1967 Detroit Riot.
• Lyndon B. Johnson: Break up 1967 Newark Riots.
• Lyndon B. Johnson: Break up nationwide riots that emerged after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
• Richard Nixon: 1970 Postal Strike.
• Jimmy Carter: Activated USCGR in response to an unprecedented refugee crisis out of Cuba.
• Ronald Reagan: While personnel were not ultimately deployed, Ronald Reagan invoked the Insurrection act in response to a prison riot.
• George H.W. Bush: Active-duty Marines and Army personnel along with National Guard to help quell Rodney King riots in Los Angeles.
• Bill Clinton: 1994 Aftermath of Northridge Earthquake.
• George W. Bush: Armed soldiers at U.S. airports after 9/11 terrorist attacks.
• Donald J. Trump: Minneapolis riots over the death of George Floyd.

It’s not compassion, it’s cowardice and dereliction of duty

Were any of these acts tyranny? No. They were the execution of federal law, often in defiance of local political gamesmanship.

The job of the President of the United States is to protect the republic, execute federal law, and ensure that no city, no state, and no activist mayor goes around picking and choosing which laws apply to them and which don’t.

Immigration is a federal issue. It always has been. The President does not need permission from San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, or New York City to secure the country--nor does he need the permission of a bunch of activist judges who seek to unconstitutionally micromanage the Office of the Presidency. He doesn’t need a permission slip from Gavin Newsom or Eric Adams to arrest and deport criminal aliens, and he certainly does not need the blessing of the mainstream media or a bunch of commie lefty whackos running around in the streets acting in an insurrectionist manner or performing their arts in the entertainment industry on stage behind the safety of a concert microphone.

Thank God we have President Trump who understands that, and has the backbone to carry out his constitutional duties.

Remember this when you hear some politician whining that federal immigration enforcement is violating sanctuary laws and that local authorities assisting federal agents is “too expensive” or “unfair to local police.” Remember that they are not defending your community--they believe they are defending their political future at the expense of your safety. They are willing to sacrifice your liberty, our sovereignty, and even the safety of American Citizens to protect their political positions, their power, and their false narrative.

It’s not compassion, it’s cowardice and dereliction of duty.

It’s all smoke and mirrors and a great big illusory case of sleight of hand.